Safely returning to sailing: "Healthy Sail Panel" recommendations

[icc2515]

This is not quite the case. They do have to have protocols, but it doesn't mean only one crew member can see it, or that other passengers who see it are a violation.

That's not quite what I am talking about. I am talking about the training that is required to teach each and every person dealing with these records that they have to remain private. They absolutely cannot leave tests laying around or mingled together. If another passenger sees some one else's test results due to a mistake by the cruise company that is a hipaa violation. If a random cruise member sees that test result that has no reason to see it, hipaa violation. There is a lot to handling medical records that these cruise lines are not familiar with and I am not sure that they want the responsibility.

 

[soniam]

I wonder how soon the Disney testing site can return results. It's available to everyone, not just Disney employees. We would probably have to get tested mid-trip, before the cruise, because we usually leave home more than 5 days before a Port Canaveral cruise to go to WDW and Universal.

Also, Covid-recovered cases are not addressed at all.

Because there is no proof of long term immunity, especially if/when it mutates. Also, many people who have had it and recovered, will test positive for a significant amount of time, ie weeks, months (years, OK Eeyore).

 

[icc2515]

HIPPA does not apply to the cruise line in general [it may in relation to their direct provision of medical services to a passenger and electronic records related to same]. The cruise line is not a health plan, healthcare provider, or healthcare clearinghouse.

If a passenger provides the cruise line with some kind of proof of a negative covid test, HIPPA is not at play. There may be other privacy laws which are at play that obligates the cruise line to protect the passenger's personal information once they receive it, but HIPPA is not.

The passenger is voluntarily* giving the information to the cruise line. It is the patient's information, and they have the right to give their own to whom they choose.

(*yes I realize it is more "voluntarily" since it is a condition of sailing, but ultimately you do have the choice to not provide it and thus not sail)

Thanks for taking the time to actually look something up and provide actual text for your argument. I was incorrect with my initial statement that showing the cruise line a piece of paper does not have anything to do with hipaa.

I do wonder if a piece of paper that is easily forged is going to be enough for the cruise line. I mean I saw people hand security these downloadable cards stating that they did not have to wear a mask due to some medical condition. They did not work of course. I would think that the cruise line would have to contract with a medical provider to collect the information from the labs electronically. Like Disney contracted with I think Advent to do the temp screening.

 

[Starwind]

Because there is no proof of long term immunity, especially if/when it mutates. Also, many people who have had it and recovered, will test positive for a significant amount of time, ie weeks, months (years, OK Eeyore).

There have also now been a small number of proven cases of reinfection [genetic testing confirming two genetically different strains of SARS-COV2] reported in the medical literature. IIRC the time between initial and reinfections has been in the 3 to 4 month range. And there has been a mix of people who were very sick the second time round as well as people who were asymtomatic the second time round.

One thing I wondered when SARS-COV2 was first identified was if it would be more like SARS or more like the 4 coronaviruses that cause cold in terms of natural immunity [or something else entirely, since it is its own very weird and wacky thing]. FWIW, the cold-causing coronaviruses have been shown to be able to reinfect people with the *same virus* as soon as 4 weeks later (!) and multiple times within the *same cold season* [evil little creatures they are!!!]. SARS-COV2 doesn't appear to be as bad as that, thankfully, but it also may well not be something like measles where for most people its one and done. Still much unknown about it.

I am really hoping the successful vaccine(s) offers strong, long-lasting immunity. I could even go for "you need a booster every 5 years" or something like that. It will be quite problematic if the time it buys is measured in months...

Also, hopefully they can develop new tests that can rapidly distinguish between those who are actively infectious or pre-infectious vs those who have lingering virus in their system but are no longer a threat to others and are therefore safe to exit quarantine [residual/ongoing symptoms permitting]. This has implications not just for cruising and leisure travel, but for broader society.

Someone else mentionned the need for tests in departure cities. I agree. For those who have diffulty accessing testing in their home cities, or for those who will do extended traveling before the cruise departure, having the ability to do a test and get results a certain number of days or the day before embarkation would be beneficial, even if one had to pay a reasonable fee to ensure quick turnaround. Ideally, then followed up with a second, rapid, test at the port itself on embarkation day.

SW

 

[Starwind]

Thanks for taking the time to actually look something up and provide actual text for your argument. I was incorrect with my initial statement that showing the cruise line a piece of paper does not have anything to do with hipaa.

I do wonder if a piece of paper that is easily forged is going to be enough for the cruise line. I mean I saw people hand security these downloadable cards stating that they did not have to wear a mask due to some medical condition. They did not work of course. I would think that the cruise line would have to contract with a medical provider to collect the information from the labs electronically. Like Disney contracted with I think Advent to do the temp screening.

No worries.

Papers can certainly be forged. Which is why the cruise line then doing their own rapid test at the port is probably a good idea as well. It gives them a second test [for those who really did have the first negative test] and serves as a fallback for those who may try to falsify a test. While testing is not perfect, it is fairly accurate, and better than no testing.

Requiring the information electronically from the testing centre could create a lot of problems. For one thing, they would be dealing with people whose providers are using all different kinds of systems and whose systems may not "talk" to each other. And that is just within the US. Add in foreign countries and you likely have a not happening situation in many cases.

I assume for covid testing at the port they would contract with a medical provider of some kind to do the testing, probably also to do temp screening.

SW

 

[truck1]

I would be mega shocked if DeSantis would not be OK with Disney upping capacity at the parks.

Me also.

 

[truck1]

Something else thats not covered is those that choose to get a vaccine or are in the test groups. In theory that will trump a neg test.
Also benchmarks on when to relax certain requirements or increase capacity.

 

[Starwind]

Something else thats not covered is those that choose to get a vaccine or are in the test groups. In theory that will trump a neg test.
Also benchmarks on when to relax certain requirements or increase capacity.

I still think they would require the neg test even with proof of vaccine, at least for some period of time. Even really good existing vaccines are not 100% effective.

Case in point: a good friend of mine had all her vaccinations for pertussis [whooping cough] plus extra when she was in the military. As an adult she managed to get infected with it. It took a bit to get diagnosed as multiple MDs wouldn't believe a vaccinated adult could have it; took a pediatrician hearing her coughing to do the diagnosis, confirmed with testing Her titres showed she had no immunity. They did her titres for other things she was vaccinated for and they are fine. For some reason the pertussis never "took"...

So even with a highly effective vaccine there will be some people it doesn't "take" for, others for whom it will provide some but not complete immunity (eg so they could still get sick, but won't get as sick as they would have without the vaccine, as is sometimes seen with the influenza vaccine), and then those who will be fully protected.

Then there is the issue of "how long does the vaccine last". In the early period they won't know beyond "some X months" just because it won't have existed long enough.

So I could see them through the first year or two or till the end of the declared pandemic period or something still requiring testing... [or as long as the port countries involved require it...]

And yep, definitely many benchmarks missing. Presumably deliberate so they don't lock themselves into something more onerous than CDC will impose.

SW

 

[ladyofthetramp]

I would be shocked if there is no rapid testing. Especially with these companies developing rapid tests cheap and limited capacity likely I would be surprised if there is no rapid testing.

There is no way to create a covid free environment. The only way to stay immune to covid is to never leave your house, never come into contact with anyone. No matter how you slice it, all of these mitigation efforts cannot prevent COVID. Masking is probably the best option (at least for now) but no one wants to wear them, and there are assuredly going to be offenders of the rule wherever you go. A vaccine could be required, but the vaccine probably is not going to be effective for everyone. Rapid tests only give you a snapshot in time, you could test positive the next day or that evening.

We just need to live with the virus and learn how to mitigate it the best we can. Hopefully increased production of rapid testing and vaccines will help us get to a position where more normal life can resume. I hope cruising can resume soon and I hope it goes well. I hope that whatever mitigation efforts that are in place work and cruising gets up and running again.

I could not agree more!

 

[monkeydawn]

I don't know that the data is out there, but I believe Disney's parks are operating at those 10-15% levels right now. Frankly, until Disney starts loosening restrictions in their parks, I find it hard to believe that Disney would just say "(bleep) it" and ignore those precautions on the boats because it's just too tough.

You are incorrect. The DW parks have been running at about 30% capacity on weekends, slightly lower during the week. One big caveat is that not all rides, attractions, dining and shops are open so that 30% normal capacity is occupying less than 100% of the parks (from what Ive read I'd ballpark the parks to be 70-80% open as far as attractions, etc.). When you take that into consideration, the % occupancy is really higher than 30%.

And I certainly didnt suggest DCL would just say beep it and ignore precautions. Dining precludes mask wearing as does pool time, two focal points for cruising for many. DW parks/ resorts go not enforce mask wearing during these activities so this isnt a DCL only issue. This is why I am all about testing as our best line of defense for something like cruising.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

30% was an arbitrary value that's the inverse of 70%. But before someone says that's too low, look at other large venues that have reopened to audiences. Most seem to be capped around the 20%-25% mark. (I thought I saw where DisneyWorld might be capped around 10% right now.) So I think 30% is pretty generous to the cruise lines, to be honest. (And it's a recognition that this number seems awfully close to the break-even point, per what was said in Galveston recently.)

Disney World opened at about 30% capacity., not 10%.

But There is another critical factor here. Disney World basically didn't open until they reached the minimal cash positive position. That is it's better (financially) for the parks to be open, then closed.

MOST Cruise ships can not operate break even at 30% capacity (some of the very, very, very new ones can). Most of the ships out there have fixed costs that push them into the 50% range for break even. I do not see cruise lines operating at a loss - they are not charities. The number will have to be closer to 50% for the majority of the ships to be able to even operate at a flat line. 60-70% would be enough to make it worth it for the on-top expenses (testing, new port safety features, not to mention private island safety that has to happen) for the businesses to make money.

In other words, 30% is not even CLOSE to generous. You're asking the cruise lines to become charities.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

People have hit on why they don't address covid-recovered, beyond lack of proof of one and done.

It would require medical record that is easily forged.

Thus, a test.

TBH even though there are travel documents that require vaccine sign off, in this case a test would also deal with forged vax paperwork.

 

[Roughians_satchel]

Disney World opened at about 30% capacity., not 10%.

But There is another critical factor here. Disney World basically didn't open until they reached the minimal cash positive position. That is it's better (financially) for the parks to be open, then closed.

MOST Cruise ships can not operate break even at 30% capacity (some of the very, very, very new ones can). Most of the ships out there have fixed costs that push them into the 50% range for break even. I do not see cruise lines operating at a loss - they are not charities. The number will have to be closer to 50% for the majority of the ships to be able to even operate at a flat line. 60-70% would be enough to make it worth it for the on-top expenses (testing, new port safety features, not to mention private island safety that has to happen) for the businesses to make money.

In other words, 30% is not even CLOSE to generous. You're asking the cruise lines to become charities.

What I'm hearing is Disney has gone ahead and quietly upped it to 50% from 30% at WDW. I keep seeing this 70% floating around (there was mention of it in regards to the port in Galveston opening) - my guess is that's the number the cruise ship needs to come close to breakeven.

 

[T & R]

TBH even though there are travel documents that require vaccine sign off, in this case a test would also deal with forged vax paperwork.

The real phony documents will start flying around when they require a vaccine. A portion of the population will be distrustful of a new vaccine and will want to see it's effects on others prior to taking it themselves. If ships go to a requirement to show proof of vaccination once the vaccine comes out, I think you will see a lot of questionable documents claiming to be vaccinated. The issue is DCL has no way to call your doctor and verify your vaccination records because your doctor cannot even legally admit that they've even seen you, yet alone release any info on treatment. So DCL will have to take your word that you've been vaccinated, making the proof of vaccine more of an effort on their part to reduce liability rather than an actual attempt to ensure you are vaccinated.

 

[T & R]

Well when things do start back up, looks like at first no more heading over to the casino at Atlantis or Baha Mar when we port a Nassau. Restricted and controlled port excursions. I do not see any way to have "bubble excursions" and be able to handle game chips and pull slot levers in a room full of non cruisers and locals. That new deal DCL did with Pearl Island looks pretty bubble like since Pearl Island seemed pretty secluded on their website. Maybe that was DCL thinking ahead for the reason of bubble excursions. Things are starting to move. 8 days till fed cruise ban ends, this is the closest we've ever come to a ban ending.

https://disneycruiselineblog.com/20...h-protocols-on-behalf-of-member-cruise-lines/

 

[_auroraborealis_]

What I'm hearing is Disney has gone ahead and quietly upped it to 50% from 30% at WDW. I keep seeing this 70% floating around (there was mention of it in regards to the port in Galveston opening) - my guess is that's the number the cruise ship needs to come close to breakeven.

DCL actually told Port of Galveston it was around 30%. Now, nothing proves or disproves that statement, but it'd be hazardous to make that kind of statement from an SEC perspective if it were wildly inaccurate (ie, a lie).

 

[T & R]

What I'm hearing is Disney has gone ahead and quietly upped it to 50% from 30% at WDW. I keep seeing this 70% floating around (there was mention of it in regards to the port in Galveston opening) - my guess is that's the number the cruise ship needs to come close to breakeven.

So far during this pandemic shutdown of DCL, the most info I have been able to get is from Port of Galveston Director Robert Rees. He is one of the only people to go on record in a publicly documented meeting and say I spoke with DCL and DCL said this. DCL has definitely not been giving any info to us (the customers) and seems like most other info is speculation but this guy actually says DCL said such and such to us the governing body of the port. According to Robert Rees, DCL never said they need to operate at 30% to break even. He stated that he has heard differing break even numbers from people and "people" have told him 30% is break even. Robert Rees went on to say the DCL told him directly that they intend to "sell" or "sail" at 70% of their ships (I cannot tell from the audio if he says "sell" or "sail" but either way the words could be used interchangeably). So according to what DCL is telling the ports who have to manage the capacity of travelers trying to board, DCL intends to sail at 70% and did not mention 30% as others are speculating.

One thing that stood out to me is that people keep commenting on this board that DCL will hang back and let the other lines sail first or that DCL will not sail due to safety or until there is a vaccine. According to Robert Rees' discussions with DCL this is not true. Robert Rees said that DCL reported to him and the Port of Galveston that when the no sail order is lifted, they intend to "get out there". Meaning the only thing holding DCL back is the no sail order. Everyone stating DCL will not sail until other lines do or that DCL will not sail until a vaccine is speculating and does not match what DCL is telling the ports.

 

[DisBNewB]

Disney World opened at about 30% capacity., not 10%.

But There is another critical factor here. Disney World basically didn't open until they reached the minimal cash positive position. That is it's better (financially) for the parks to be open, then closed.

MOST Cruise ships can not operate break even at 30% capacity (some of the very, very, very new ones can). Most of the ships out there have fixed costs that push them into the 50% range for break even. I do not see cruise lines operating at a loss - they are not charities. The number will have to be closer to 50% for the majority of the ships to be able to even operate at a flat line. 60-70% would be enough to make it worth it for the on-top expenses (testing, new port safety features, not to mention private island safety that has to happen) for the businesses to make money.

In other words, 30% is not even CLOSE to generous. You're asking the cruise lines to become charities.

Just a note: you're saying two different things here. Cash positive means they're not losing money. But being better (financially) for (parks/ships/whatever) to be open than closed doesn't necessarily mean they'd be in a cash positive position. It would mean that they'd lose LESS money by operating than they are by not operating.

I have no idea what those numbers would look like, how much they're losing with the boats not running at all, vs how much it costs to pay to staff & run a cruise, but it's entirely plausible that DCL (or any other such company) would choose to start running at a low percentage if it means that they'd be losing LESS money than they are not running.

(I work at some such business, but on a MUCH smaller scale. Our options were basically: keep paying employees something/anything and run out of cash money very quickly, get rid of the entire part of our business that was shut down and have to fire all the employees, or open partially, whereupon we're still losing money, but not as much as we would be by keeping that part closed but employing people, because we didn't want to get rid of that part of our business altogether. I realize the costs involved in employing individuals don't get accounted for in quite the same manner as payments to builders and port fees and such, but just trying to give a more real-world example.)

 

[HiStitch626]

8 days till fed cruise ban ends, this is the closest we've ever come to a ban ending.

So far during this pandemic shutdown of DCL, the most info I have been able to get is from Port of Galveston Director Robert Rees. He is one of the only people to go on record in a publicly documented meeting and say I spoke with DCL and DCL said this. DCL has definitely not been giving any info to us (the customers) and seems like most other info is speculation but this guy actually says DCL said such and such to us the governing body of the port. According to Robert Rees, DCL never said they need to operate at 30% to break even. He stated that he has heard differing break even numbers from people and "people" have told him 30% is break even. Robert Rees went on to say the DCL told him directly that they intend to "sell" or "sail" at 70% of their ships (I cannot tell from the audio if he says "sell" or "sail" but either way the words could be used interchangeably). So according to what DCL is telling the ports who have to manage the capacity of travelers trying to board, DCL intends to sail at 70% and did not mention 30% as others are speculating.

But, hasn't Disney canceled a big chunk of their Galveston cruises for this winter already?

 

[truck1]

I still think they would require the neg test even with proof of vaccine, at least for some period of time. Even really good existing vaccines are not 100% effective.

Case in point: a good friend of mine had all her vaccinations for pertussis [whooping cough] plus extra when she was in the military. As an adult she managed to get infected with it. It took a bit to get diagnosed as multiple MDs wouldn't believe a vaccinated adult could have it; took a pediatrician hearing her coughing to do the diagnosis, confirmed with testing Her titres showed she had no immunity. They did her titres for other things she was vaccinated for and they are fine. For some reason the pertussis never "took"...

So even with a highly effective vaccine there will be some people it doesn't "take" for, others for whom it will provide some but not complete immunity (eg so they could still get sick, but won't get as sick as they would have without the vaccine, as is sometimes seen with the influenza vaccine), and then those who will be fully protected.

Then there is the issue of "how long does the vaccine last". In the early period they won't know beyond "some X months" just because it won't have existed long enough.

So I could see them through the first year or two or till the end of the declared pandemic period or something still requiring testing... [or as long as the port countries involved require it...]

And yep, definitely many benchmarks missing. Presumably deliberate so they don't lock themselves into something more onerous than CDC will impose.

SW

I agree with what your saying. Theres still a lot of unknown with the anti-virus etc. I would assume,, and I know this is asking a lot from a goverment entity, that they would do a titre test after the anti vac. I know I had to have 1 for several vaccines I got when I was on the line. One of the things I was referencing is that there's no mention on how to deal with it. There's things in the package I dont see that means either a they don't know they don't know, or b its deliberately vague for CDC to fill in the gaps. Which based on somethings im not seeing there either, leads me to believe that there's things they don't know they don't know also.

I've seen more then a few conflicting accounts on herd immunity and the anti virus In general. So it's still a huge grey area.

Something else that isn't addressed is what states have a quarantine in place order for other states. How does that factor in to their plan? I think Hawaii is one for example. Florida, the cruise capital of the world had a ban on NY and some other travelers for while, as another example.

Its a good start from what I'm seeing but this is all up to the CDC and when they decide to do something. Even then it won't be instantaneous as I think it was Royal that said it will take at least 30 days if not longer to get full crews back to the ships, the ships themselves ready, and this is also assuming the Coast Guard doesn't get involved, as there certain time frames that may get exceeded and then they have to physically inspect every ship, and credentials of every mariner to make sure they still meet or exceed the requirements. The longer a ship is idled, the longer it takes to get them back in service. What there doing now, running them to the islands will help but if they park them, 90 days just for the CG side wouldn't be out of the equation.